I now have pleasure in calling Deputy McGahon.
Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Did I have any alternative? However, your remarks are as charming as ever. There are many cynical people out in the real world who may think the Bill on protection for part-time workers refers to TDs. However, you, I and everyone else in this Assembly know that that is not quite the case and that on some occasions we work eight day weeks. I intend to make only a brief contribution to this debate. I congratulate the Minister on the practical and common sense approach he has adopted to the plight of the many thousands of workers who are caught in this trap. Most of these workers are in the twilight or nixer zone.
As Deputy Wallace said, no doubt there are many unscrupulous employers who are prepared to take advantage of these people who work only a few hours per week, but many thousands of workers have also benefited from this system. I am glad that such workers are being given recognition, and will be welcomed into the social welfare system where they will be entitled to avail of the substantial benefits in that area. This is a practical, long overdue measure. I applaud the Minister on his proposal to include part-time workers in the system. Many part-time workers are hard pressed mothers who need the extra work. I accept that many men work part-time also but generally speaking most part-time workers are women. I welcome the practical move being taken to include them in the social welfare system so that they will have access to the benefits in that system. I congratulate the Minister on his common sense approach to this issue.
Many people have felt for some time that there is a need to put in place legislation which will protect part-time workers. There has been much discussion on the issue of part-time work. Indeed I had the opportunity to speak in this House in May of last year on this issue. My thinking on this issue has not changed since, that is, that we, as legislators, should put in place the necessary legislation which will protect workers right across the board, particularly in areas where there is a recognised need for appropriate legislation. Prior to the introduction of this Bill there was no legislation dealing with the conditions of part-time workers. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.
It was clear from the Minister's opening speech that much research and study has been undertaken into the plight of part-time workers. The Minister referred to all the figures and statistics available and I do not intend to go over them again other than to say that women in the age group of 25-40 years account for approximately three-quarters of all part-time workers. I will refer later to this interesting statistic. I have listened to almost all the speakers who have contributed to this debate. Most speakers suggested that the absence of legislation in this area can lead to abuse and exploitation. That may be correct. Some speakers gave the impression that there are many big, bad employers who just want to abuse and exploit employees and that all part-time workers are abused and exploited, have poor working conditions, no holidays, low pay and so on. That is not so. I appreciate that certain employers will abuse any system — there will always be an element of this — but many employers are very fair, and treat their part-time workers very well and give them an opportunity to participate in the work place.
This Bill will put in place a balanced framework for employees and employers as it recognises economic trends, market demands and the need for part-time workers. I believe most Deputies are familiar with the Blackwell report which deals with the changing role of part-time work in Ireland and its implications. That report highlights the need for legislation and refers to the developing trends in the area of part-time work.
An IPA Personnel Management Conference held in Jurys Hotel yesterday dealt with the impact of changing employment patterns on manpower policies. Dr. Catherine Hakim presented a paper at that conference in which she stated:
Ireland is thus one of the EC countries with scope for a dramatic increase in part-time employment in the 1990s, reinforced by rapidly changing attitudes to working women, and by Ireland's reducing the eligibility threshold from 18 hours to eight hours (the threshold recommended by the EC for the Community Social Charter). While it may be hazardous to identify a "natural" rate of part-time work, the evidence of Table 2 suggests that a 20 per cent rate for part-time work nationally, rising to double this level among women, constitutes a natural plateau beyond which there are only minor further increases.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that part-time work is predominantly a preferred option, particularly among women, in Ireland. Involuntary part-time work has, if anything, been declining.
That is a very significant statement. The Bill now before us deals with the development during the nineties to which Dr. Hakim referred and also defines regular part-time work.
Some concern has been expressed about the threshold of eight hours. Dr. Hakim adequately covered the eight-hour threshold, the threshold recommended by the EC for the Community Social Charter. I believe employers would find it very difficult to abuse the eight-hour threshold. I support the threshold of eight hours and the 13-week requirement, which is in line with Community thinking.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the Labour Party spokesman, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, saying that the Minister, in recognising part-time work, had thus abandoned the notion of full-time employment. I believe most people will appreciate that that is rubbish. He also referred to the Minister's comments in relation to the FIE's belief that part-time work would lead to more efficiency and greater competition in the market place. Deputy O'Sullivan said that this would not be the case. He said that the only people who would benefit from the growth in part-time work would be the employers and it was regrettable that in the years from 1975 to 1989 there was a growth of 10,500 part-time workers in the work place. I am surprised that Deputy O'Sullivan as Labour Party spokesman on Labour regrets the creation of 10,500 jobs.
I do not wish to be disorderly, but I ask Deputy Callely to be present next Wednesday morning for Committee Stage when I will have an opportunity to respond to him in full.
I will be happy to hear what the Deputy has to say because he also said that it has been proven beyond doubt that part-time work does not create jobs, it creates profits. I would like to know where you get your statistics in relation to that. I cannot understand your comments or sentiments——
That does not surprise me.
——and having read your contribution, I wonder what side you will take on the Bill. You gave recognition to the number of people employed in part-time work but you questioned many aspects.
On a point of order, I would be more than happy to respond to Deputy Callely but I have no doubt you would rule me out of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and rightly so. I respectfully suggest that Deputy Callely direct his remarks to the Chair, as is customary in this Chamber, rather than to me. I will respond to Deputy Callely on Wednesday next.
I am speaking through the Chair, as you know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I regret if I am upsetting Deputy O'Sullivan. I have one or two other things to say. This Bill is a very progressive step. It addresses a need in the workplace. What surprised me were the comments of the Labour Party on the Bill. They questioned many aspects of it and quoted figures for the period 1975-89. That is on the record.
That is the last period for which figures are available.
I want to remind all Members of the Labour Party that during the period 1975-77 Michael O'Leary, who was to become the Leader of the Labour Party, was Minister for Labour.
He has a record of introducing labour legislation in this House equal to none.
In 1981 and 1982 Deputy Liam Kavanagh was Minister for Labour. He was kicking up a rumpus at Question Time today about the developments being made by the Minister for the Environment. The figures mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the period 1975-89, but Deputy Ruairí Quinn was Minister for Labour during the period 1983-87, and one has to ask what did these people do for part-time workers when they were in that position.
One of my colleagues referred to Patricia Donovan, the Assistant General Secretary of the ICTU. He said she recognises the Bill before the House as being one of the most significant pieces of legislation since the seventies.
Did the Deputy read all the reports on the legislation and the submissions——
I see I am upsetting Deputy O'Sullivan, but I just wanted to put the facts on record. The facts are there and that is the proven record.
I hope the Minister will support the Deputy's position and I hope——
Deputy O'Sullivan, please restrain yourself.
I am being provoked. I am entitled to defend myself.
Deputy O'Sullivan will get an opportunity, as he has anticipated, next week. Everybody in the House has to contain provocation at some time.
I wish Deputy Callely had something to offer to the debate. He has not advanced one iota——
Deputy O'Sullivan will have to listen patiently while Deputy Callely addresses the Chair. If Deputy Callely addresses the Chair and looks towards the Chair he will get uninterrupted audience, as long as he is in order.
I am simply indicating that we have before the House a framework that will assist both the employee and the employer in relation to part-time work. I am also indicating that in the past there were opportunities for people to introduce such legislation but they did not avail of it. Yet today they are happy to come into this House and quote figures and facts as far back as the time they had an opportunity to do something about the matter.
I would refer to another previous speaker, Deputy Fennell, who mentioned women in the workforce. I support what she said in relation to women's role in the labour market and the need for a lower workload when their children are young; but I do not agree with her comments on cheap labour, exploitation, vulnerable people and particularly the State colluding with such exploitation. Other speakers made similar comments. One would think that part-time workers are victims. To that I say, what rubbish. Deputy Fennell guessed that most women part-time workers are widows, separated or deserted wives, but I disagree. What about the unmarried working mother? I also know many married part-time working mothers. Indeed, my own wife works part-time and it is suitable for us that she can continue to have an input in the workplace while also giving time to our two young children. I know this position is ideal for many of my other young married colleagues where the male has his role to play in the house and in the workplace and the female partner would like to have an equal opportunity and to keep her place in the workforce.
I do not disagree with anything the Deputy has said, but it is starting to sound like special pleading.
I am glad the Deputy does not disagree with what I have said so far. Statistics show that about three-quarters of the women who participate in the part-time workforce are in the age bracket 25-44 years. Would one agree that this tallies with the child-bearing years? Maybe during these years part-time work suits most mothers. As I have indicated, they can continue to have a role in the workplace and also look after their young children.
This legislation covers maternity entitlements of part-time workers. I would like to refer to the suggestion of Deputy Shatter that maternity benefit be extended to adoptive parents. I would go a step further and suggest that it also be extended to foster parents. I wholeheartedly concur with the Deputy's suggestion in that regard. I know a number of people who have adopted children and there is very little difference in the role of a mother of an adopted child and that of a mother looking after her own child. Adjustments need to be made and it would be of great benefit if the Minister would favourably consider the proposal to extend the maternity benefit to both adoptive and foster parents.
I recall one speaker asking for a three to four week benefit for the father, but I do not agree with that. I see Deputy Shatter smiling. Perhaps fathers could be given benefit for one or two days, but in the present economic climate I think most people would agree it is a non-runner. If that is the Minister's thinking on paternity benefit I concur with that. I would like to deal with the measures introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Michael Woods, to extend social welfare benefits to part-time workers. Most people have covered that aspect, and of course it is particularly welcome.
In conclusion, I welcome this progressive legislation. It is in keeping with our progressive Minister for Labour, Deputy Bertie Ahern. He has been to the fore in introducing labour legislation, notably the Industrial Relations Act, 1989, and the Safety. Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, and of course he has had an input into the very much recognised Programme for National Recovery as well as the new Programme for Economic and Social Progress. His attention to legislation and all policy matters with a social conscience and his concentration on addressing those most in need is very laudable. I wish the Minister and the Bill every success.
I should like to briefly respond to Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan's contribution to the debate. I am sorry he raised the hoary old chestnut of the possibility of having full-time paid work for everyone on the basis of, say, a 39 hour week. This is a total non-starter which I would have thought everyone in the House realised by now. I accept his point that part-time workers have been exploited by employers because they are more difficult to organise through trade unions and perhaps because they are less interested in fair employment because it is not a full-time job. However, we want to progress beyond this concept.
The Green Party concept of work, particularly in the context of married people, is towards a situation in which husband and wife would job share and contribute to bringing up children and running a home. This is the kind of road down which we should be going, not trying to create full-time jobs for 240,000 people; it just cannot be done. Proper protection for part-time workers is very much part of the Green Party policy because those workers are a vulnerable — and increasingly important — section. As we know, more and more people are now employed on a part-time basis and this should not necessarily be seen as a bad thing, as Deputy O'Sullivan seems to think; it should be seen as a good thing, provided there is adequate protection for them.
Employment legislation of this kind would be needed in a more rational economy where a citizen did not have to rely on waged labour for his income; this is another aspect of Green Party policy. The situation where income is derived only as a reward for work is an anachronism and has led to the creation of a two-tier society with comfortably employed, if heavily taxed, people on one side and economically marginalised people on the other. It has also led to the bureaucratisation of society as we desperately try to come to terms with an irrational arrangement regarding the distribution of wealth.
Although we support this kind of legislation as a short term measure, we recognise that this Bill will lead to an increase in bureaucracy and, therefore, a further lessening of freedom in society. It may also have the side effect of increasing the vulnerability of part-time workers as employers will tend to get rid of them in an attempt to sidestep their legal obligations; otherwise they will still further reduce their hours. For example, what is to prevent an employer, instead of employing one person for 15 hours, from employing two people for seven hours? This is the trouble. Where will it all end? We do not know. One would have to have strong faith in the capitalist system to rely on the good faith of employers in this regard.
In the long term, the Green Party look forward to the freeing of the whole labour market as a result of the payment of a guaranteed basic income to each citizen as of right instead of the grudging and inadequate social welfare system which exists at present. If we had such a system there would be no need for this kind of legislation since people would have basic sustenance, independent of their employment, and would be much freer to move between different types of work, such as work in the home, full and part-time work, further education and so on. In this connection I call on Deputy John Bruton to make his stand on basic income known to the House as well as to the national media.
There is an unfortunate and glaring omission in this Bill — to make an exemption for small family firms. This Bill, if passed in its present form, will place another crushing burden on small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, and which have much greater potential for employment creation than the larger firms, particularly the multinationals which come and go when the humour — or the tax climate — takes them. It is notable that equivalent British legislation, the Discrimination Act, 1975, which was implemented by a Labour Government — please note — specifically excluded firms employing fewer than five people from the provisions of the Act. It is absolutely essential, for the survival of these small businesses, that a similar provision is built into this legislation. I call on the Minister, even at this late stage, to consider an amendment in this regard; if he will not accede to my request, I will certainly table an amendment on Committee Stage.
I welcome the Bill which is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation to have been introduced in the House for some time. I congratulate the Minister for introducing it and on the matter in which he got broad agreement right across the board from employers, trade unions and various groups. It is in keeping with this excellent record with trade unions and employers that he has been successful in reaching a consensus on this issue.
I particularly welcome the definition in the Bill of a part-time worker and the change in emphasis from the hours worked to wages. It closes a loophole which was used by employers to pay very low wages to stay below the statutory limits. Because of this change there will be less exploitation of young people, female workers in particular.
The need for the legislation has been quite clear for some time and there has been a number of debates on the matter. Indeed, the Minister pointed out, in introducing the legislation, that there had been an increase in the number of regular part-time workers. More particularly, he placed emphasis on the sectoral composition of the part-time workforce. The significant figures, adverted to by a number of speakers, were those he quoted in relation to the number of women part-time workers. He said that the figure was 70 per cent, 70 per cent of those workers were married and almost 80 per cent were in the 25 to 64 age group. These figures are very significant and have serious social implications.
Quite a number of people referred to the fact that the surveys suggest that quite a high proportion of women who work do not do so from choice but from economic necessity. That should be seriously considered, not just by the Minister for Labour in this legislation but by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare. The fact that so many women are forced to work in a part-time capacity from economic necessity, must be seriously addressed. We must again look at our attitude to women in the home and in the work place in the context of our social welfare and tax laws. We have a very good social welfare system, indeed recently some people have said it is too good. Yet there are people who are forced by economic necessity to go out to work. Our system should be geared to assist the role of the homemaker. Lest anybody accuse me of being sexist, I stress the homemaker can be male or female.
In our Constitution we put the family in a very special position, but after that we pay just lip service to the role of the family. The need for a good home environment has been well established and we as legislators should try to help in that regard as much as possible. We should examine again the whole area of payment for stay-at-home spouses and the recent suggestion that the person who stays at home should have a right to half the wage packet of the principal earner in the family. Why does our social welfare system not allow for a lump sum payment to a family rather than providing that the principal person gets so much and the dependant, usually the wife, gets a lesser amount? The system should be adapted so that there is a single payment for a married couple plus the child allowances in respect of the child dependants thus not discriminating against those who want to stay at home.
Those who really want to go out to work part-time are well covered by this Bill. It is a major advance and will protect part-time workers very well. They will now have the full protection of the social welfare system in addition to that of this new labour law which will enhance their status and assist them greatly. The legislation will also benefit employers, giving them greater flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. Various sectors have different needs at different times of the year with seasonal work and some at different times of the week. The legislation will give the employer greater freedom which in the changing market circumstances is absolutely necessary, but it is equally necessary to protect employees from exploitation.
Reservations expressed from the Opposition centre on the possible cost to employers. The main point made in the debate was a danger that as a result employers would be put out of business and profits would be affected. I do not regard that as an argument against the Bill. Are the people who put it forward suggesting that exploiting people is an acceptable way of maintaining employment or making a profit? I for one cannot accept that argument.
The Bill goes a long way to reducing the black economy, is very desirable socially and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward.
I thank all the Deputies for contributing to this Second Stage debate. The Workers' Party Private Members' Bill and this Bill have given rise to considerable debate and we have had considerable airing of the legislation. That is no less than it deserves because of its importance to the workers concerned and because of the signal it provides that economic and social measures will proceed in an integrated fashion under this Administration. While some matters have been put down for Committee Stage, there has been a fair degree of consensus on the content of the Bill. Leaving aside the question of a statutory minimum wage and other equally important issues relating to continuity of service, to which I will return later, there is a very considerable degree of support for my proposals. There are, of course some Government amendments, largely consequent on the recent changes in social welfare regulations, which I will also put forward.
Both Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Rabbitte indicated a preference for the inclusion of a provision for a statutory national minimum wage in this Bill. Low pay is usually associated with certain sectors of industry and services where part-time workers also predominate. I can understand how in that context the point has been raised here, but it is as well to recognise where the debate on a statutory minimum wage currently stands. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions proposed in the course of the discussions on the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that there should be a statutory national minimum wage. The employer organisations stated their total opposition to this proposal. It has been agreed that during the period of the programme the Employer-Labour Conference will consider all the issues involved, including the operation of a joint labour committee system, in regard to a statutory minimum wage.
For my part, I have made my policy clear. Much low paid work tends to be unskilled, requiring few qualifications, with little or no prospects of promotion and subject to high rates of labour turnover. As a consequence, measures to comprehensively tackle the problem must therefore cover a range of areas such as education, training, social benefits and taxation as well as the question of pay. Research carried out for my Department on the economic effects of minimum wage legislation concludes that such legislation could reduce employment levels. According to this research the effects of this reduction would be concentrated most severely on particular vulnerable groups such as young workers, women and the least well educated and, I would venture to say, part-time workers. The research also indicates little connection between low pay and poverty as many of the low paid do not come from low income households. A statutory minimum wage is therefore regarded as being an ineffective anti-poverty measure.
Pending the outcome of the Employer Labour Conference examination, it is my conviction that in attempting to address the low pay problem we must look at all the factors associated with low pay and the categories of workers involved. As far as pay determination is concerned, I still incline to the view that the best approach is through collective bargaining operating in conjunction with the joint labour committee system.
Several Deputies have reflected a concern which has been mentioned by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, that is, the growth of non-standard forms of employment, including contract work and agency work. Deputy Shatter recalled the Congress request that the Bill be amended to incorporate its own definition of "employer" and "employee", but his principal concern would seem to be with categories who are employees for all practical purposes but described otherwise — for example, as self-employed. Deputy O'Sullivan gave specific examples and so too did Deputy Ahern; Deputy Martin expressed concern also about such developments. There is a number of issues involved in this area and it is useful to tease them out. First, I believe that the situation about agency workers needs to be examined. While we cannot read too much into the statistics, the fact that there has been a progressive increase in the number of agencies registered by my Department in recent times has signalled the need for a review. I have accordingly undertaken in the PESP to examine the position of agency workers and the legislation relating to the control of employment agencies. That review will take up some time and I do not consider that we should hold up this Bill on that account.
Second, there is the question of the nature and extent of change in relation to contracting. Some people believe that there has been a dramatic increase in subcontracting of production and services from enterprises to subcontractors; the evidence for this is often anecdotal and often relates to the same small number of high profile examples.
Then, there is the point that within the framework of subcontracting practices vary. For example, the workers of Bord na Móna's autonomous enterprise units, although they act as contractors, remain the employees of the board and as such are within the scope of labour law. My impression is that for reasons of production and markets strategy companies are in the process of decentralising or rationalising and jobs are being devolved. Catering, cleaning, transport and security are well known examples. The point is, however, that many of the workers in these jobs remain employees — employees of the new subcontractors perhaps, but employees nevertheless, and fully protected under labour law. I cannot deny that there are also those who become, or are made to become, self-employed as a result of those strategies. There is nothing new about this, nor is there anything intrinsically wrong with it. It is a practice which has been happening for some long time. My concern would be with what I might term "bogus self-employed"; workers close to the black economy, freelancers without the responsibilities and the rights either of workers or of the self-employed. We are continuing to gather information about the extent and location of this category, not just because of concerns about labour law but also because of responsibilities vis-à-vis tax and social security. It is not a matter, I believe, of focusing on their situation under labour law, less so under a Bill which deals with part-time work.
However, the issues raised are relevant to my labour legislation programme for the nineties and, as indicated, I propose to start with the situation of agency workers. Taking up a point made by Deputy Hillery on the relationship between policy formulation and the research conducted within our academic community. I would hope to get more hard information on the extent, causes and consequences of non standard forms of employment. We can do that over the next 12 months.
Deputy Shatter, in his contribution to the debate, asked me to respond to the suggestion by Congress that the Redundancy payments Acts would provide a more appropriate mechanism than the First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act for calculating continuous service. Deputy Rabbitte indicated concern that unscrupulous employers would use fixed term contracts to avoid obligations imposed by this Bill. He suggested that we should take on board the Congress idea or, alternatively, import from social welfare legislation the notion of cumulative service — for example, 13 weeks service over half a year.
I had indeed looked at both these suggestions. It is true that the Redundancy Payments Acts provide that where an employee who has less than 104 weeks' service is dismissed by reason of redundancy, and is re-employed within 26 weeks, both periods of service are reckonable and continuity is preserved. However, this does not apply where the dismissal consists of the expiry of a fixed-term contract.
The problem I see with Deputy Rabbitte's idea of accumulating service is that this would result in obligations being imposed on employers in situations where there has been a genuine dismissal and subsequent re-employment and not just in cases where unscrupulous employers are trying to avoid legal requirements.
I do not believe it is necessary to amend the Bill in this respect, principally because the First Schedule is already widely used and has proved in practice to be an effective mechanism for calculating continuous service and any disputes which might arise can be dealt with by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. However, I will continue to look at this issue and may return to it on Committee Stage.
There has been some criticism of the retention of thresholds. In a perfect world one would dispose of thresholds. But the reality is that labour laws, the mechanisms set up to ensure that these are observed and that people can exercise their rights under those laws impose costs on employers, on the Exchequer, and on society generally. In deciding on how far I should extend this social policy measure I had regard to several factors. First, as I have already explained, is the position of the Social Affairs Commissioner, who has maintained an eight-hour threshold in a number of her recent proposals. That is the suggestion. It may not be as low as eight. Second, I have had regard to the numbers of hours which part-time workers work, according to the Labour Force Survey, and I have pitched the level at that point which brings in a very high proportion of those currently excluded and accounts for 91 per cent of the man-hours worked by those working less than 18 hours per week.
In the wide consultations which preceded publication of the Bill it was emphasised time and again that the notion of entirely removing thresholds would give rise to problems out of proportion to the benefits achieved. I do not agree with those who argue that, because employment protection legislation represents a cost to employers and a possible disincentive to hire, we should in present circumstances look to deregulation or even retrenchment. But in further developing our labour laws there is a very definite onus on me to have regard to their likely impact on labour costs and particularly to stop short of measures that give rise to administrative costs which are out of proportion to the likely benefits. It is certainly the case, as Deputy Rabbitte points out, that studies such as those of Dr. Eileen Drew indicate that customer service rather than labour cost is the motivation for recourse to part-time workers in some instances, but there is also evidence that labour costs play a role. I do not accept that in our present circumstances one is justified in moving below eight hours.
My consultations revealed that there has been a practice of setting working hours just below the current 18 hours in order to evade certain responsibilities under labour and social security legislation. This is not so widespread that it shows up as a major feature of official statistics but is nevertheless a very definite practice in some quarters, as Deputy Browne points out. In striking a new threshold of eight hours I was motivated by a desire to minimise the possibilities of this being repeated. My assessment is that for operational and administrative reasons it would not be in the interests of the employers concerned to adjust hours and workforce to evade labour law obligations in the future.
Deputy Rabbitte is quite correct where he says that the power given to a Minister in section 1 (3) (b) of the Bill could result in theory in the threshold being moved up as well as down. It is more likely to move down.
Several Deputies, including Deputy Shatter, Deputy Ahern and Deputy Fennell, spoke about parental leave and adoptive leave. In the context of this Bill I interpret their remarks as primarily a matter of getting on the record a desire that statutory measures should be introduced generally in place of the present arrangements. I do not interpret their remarks as a proposal that leave should be introduced exclusively for part-time workers.
The question of making a statutory provision has been considered on a number of occasions in recent years. However, in the context of other social priorities it has been considered inopportune to introduce statutory provisions, but I intend to keep the matter under review. I would also like to reassure Deputy Wallace that our work about the development of child care services as an integral part of the work-place is continuing and that I hope to announce fairly soon some concrete measures in that regard.
Some concerns have been expressed by Deputies Shatter and Ahern that the provisions of this Bill could force people into the black economy or that it can have the other effect. I agree with the point made by Deputy Shatter that the fact that people are more likely to have entitlements will mean that they will opt out of the black economy. I disagree with the view put forward by a number of Deputies that this will enlarge the black economy. There are many good arguments to be made, which I will perhaps go into next week.
There is, of course, a view that advanced statutory protection increases the gross costs of labour or the employer's long range commitment and future costs and that for this reason there will be greater recourse to the informal sector, sometimes with, sometimes without, the workers' concurrence. Nobody can deny that this is one possible reaction to Government initiatives, whether in the tax field, the extension of social security or labour law generally, and that a certain number of workers and employers are prepared to live with the long term consequences of that kind of insecurity.
But there is an equally compelling argument on the other side. Deputy Martin is correct in identifying this Bill as an incentive to keep people in the formal labour market. My proposals are designed to encourage workers to stay out of, or to come out of, the black economy. Just as they have a legitimate interest in ensuring their insurability under social welfare, there are also concrete advantages in the short and the medium term under labour law.
Some issues arose concerning the complexity of labour law, the need for consolidation and particularly the need for comprehensive explanatory literature for part-time workers on their rights under labour law. Deputy Shatter spoke about that at some length. I have already, through the development of a published departmental guide to labour law, responded to the need to reduce the burden on small employers in that regard. I can reassure the House that I will be arranging for the issue of appropriate explanatory literature so that the terms of this Bill will be made clear to users. I will turn to the other aspects later because I do not disagree with the reference idea.
Deputy Shatter, as I understand him, sought clarification of how the new Bill with its service qualification of 13 weeks will interact with the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981. I believe that what he had in mind was the situation of a worker who replaces a worker who is on the statutory 14 weeks maternity leave. This kind of situation is provided for in section 24 of the 1981 Act, which amends the Unfair Dismissals Act by excluding from the scope of that Act a dismissal where the employer informs the replacement employee, in writing, at the beginning of the employment that it will terminate on the return to work of the person who is going on maternity leave.
There is also the point that the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act does not apply to a fixed term contract of less than 26 weeks or a temporary contract which has less than 26 weeks to run.
Deputies Shatter and O'Sullivan share some unease about my proposal that part-time workers, like other workers, should have access to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, because in the tribunal they would be faced with an impressive array of lawyers representing employers and could not afford themselves the necessary legal armoury. Both have suggested mechanisms whereby in certain circumstances employees' legal costs should be covered. I answered a question last week on that, but unfortunately we did not reach the verbal questions on it.
Membership of trade unions, who regularly represent workers before the tribunal, is one answer from the employees' perspective. It is instructive to note that almost 2,600 employees, or over 50 per cent of the total, who appeared before the tribunal in 1989 were represented — over 1,500 by trade unions, the others by legal representatives. Only one in five employers were represented. There is also an argument that if in certain circumstances employees' costs could be awarded——
The Minister must conclude in a minute.
——in equity the reverse situation could apply. There is a number of other issues with which I would like to deal and perhaps on Committee Stage I can come back to some of the points.
I thank all the Deputies who spoke last week and Deputies Cotter, O'Donoghue, O'Shea, Fitzpatrick, Dan Wallace, McGahon, Callely, Garland and Dempsey who spoke today. I thank the Front Bench spokesmen, Deputies Shatter, T. O'Sullivan, and Rabbitte, for their major contributions to the Bill. The Deputies have been co-operative in some discussions and it is vital that we get this Bill through both Houses before 6 April so that it can line up with other legislation. I have the support of the Deputies in that regard and we will just have to get the support of the Whips. If we can get the Bill through this House next week and the following week get it through the Seanad it would be in line with the labour legislation.
One other important point mentioned by Deputies today, particularly Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, was that in the event of not getting this through we can do nothing about any employers who try to change the regulations. I thank the spokesmen for their co-operation.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Wednesday morning next, subject to agreement between the Whips.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13 March 1991.